What actually happened in Sweden was that they had an unusually wet snowfall. The wet snow then froze into solid ice. Reindeer survive the winter by eating lichens. When the snow turned to ice the animals could not get to the lichens which they usually reach by just pawing through the loose snow. Sweden had no more precipitation ice or otherwise than normal. In fact the wet snow was caused by unusually warm air masses for the season.

_________________________
You cannot defend against that which you do not understand

OK, I must be missing something. JAMJTX is actually SUPPORTING that global warming is having negative environmental effects, even if localized ice melt is not one of the problems (ie; deer are dying from lack of food to unusual ice formation)?

That still seems like a bad thing to me, and a result of the global warming trend, right?

Quote:OK, I must be missing something. JAMJTX is actually SUPPORTING that global warming is having negative environmental effects, even if localized ice melt is not one of the problems (ie; deer are dying from lack of food to unusual ice formation)?

That still seems like a bad thing to me, and a result of the global warming trend, right?

Localized ice loss is occurring. There is no doubt about that. What there is also no doubt about is that there is no reason to be alarmed about it. It's part of a natural cycle and it will come back. Just as it always has.

Warming is not causing ice increaes in other areas. It is getting colder in other areas, thus more freezing. Warming does not cause ice - freezing does. That's why we make ice cubes in freezers and not in ovens.

What I have been pointing out in my posts is how science disproves the "threat of global warming".

Climate change has always occurred and has always had negative effects. Plants and animals die off. Maybe even people. The geography changes and other things dissappear as well.

But there is also good that comes. In some places they are reporing new species of animals and plants. These could not come about without climate change.

Without change, our continent would not exists. There would be no Grand Canyon, no Yellowstone. There never would have been rain forest. All of the things that the "global warming crowd" are trying to preserve by trying to bring about an un-natural end to the natural cycles of climate change only exist because the climate changed in the past allowing them to come into existence.

If not for climate change, the North American continent would still be covered with glaciers and we would not have the rich farmland in the midwest.

For all of those saying that the ice sheets are actually growing please post some proof. I have access to data that proves otherwise. Bring up a satellite pic of either pole or the Greenland ice sheet spanning the past 10 years and the proof just jumps out in your face. All of the major glaciers in Europe many which the people depend on for drinking water are almost gone. Same in the Andes. Same in the U.S. And how is that ice being replentished since snowfall in these areas are at altime record lows. The snow is not falling and where it is it's the wrong type of snow. Yes there are different types of snow. Even in the Himalayas the snow and ice are going bye bye and villages that have been standing for over 2500 years are going to be deserted because of lack of water. Where is there more ice? I have a satellite pic up on the monitor right now of a piece of the Anarctic ice sheet the size of a small country that recently broke off. Of course this has all happened before. And there are a lot of factors contributing to the changes now. For one thing we are actually just coming to the end of the last ice age. It ain't quite over just yet so we are warming. Also, volcanic activity is now at the highest level it has been in thousands of years. Yes we can check on these things. It's not at all hard to do so. But there is no way that anyone can say that having billions of humans pumping out billions of tons of pollutants has no effect. The fact that it is a natural process is no comfort to me. There have been many mass extinctions that have occured during the earths history for many reasons. But this is the first time in the history of the planet that any animal species on the planet has had the power to effect such change. The Grand Canyon took hundreds of millions of years to create. But the scientific data shows that although this is indeed a natural process that has occured before it is happening way too fast this time. Death is a perfectly natural event in every human life too. So if you get sick and there is a cure do you just ignore the cure and throw up your hands and say "oh well, lets just let nature take it's course"? We may not be able to stop the natural processes that are warming the earth. But why not clean up our act and at least not speed up the process? The technology is there. Most of it is old technology. But the corporate greed driving the worlds economy is not going to be easily dealt with. The U.S. economy is in a shambles and we are going to drag down the rest of the world when our economy collapses. The people driving this runaway train flat out don't care. They are mostly greedy and corrupt old men who are just living for today. Until the everyday ordinary people rise up in rightous indignation and scream "stop" and take back their lives things will continue on a downhill slide to extinction. The chances of a worldwide human revolution is slim and none. We are a unique species. We are absolute geniouses at making war but low leval idiots when it comes to making peace. We are a predatory species. We are natural born killers. And we don't really care too much who or what we kill as long as there is a profit to be made from it.

_________________________
You cannot defend against that which you do not understand

Also look at a study published in the Sept. 2006 American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate that shows that the Hmalayan glaciers are growing.

There is also abundent data to show that glaciers are growing in Wahsington,France, and Switzerland. It is also clear that the Antarctic ice cap elevation is increasing meaning that it is getting thicker. Also a study by Harvard concluded that "we just don't know if the ice mass balance is growing or shrinking" due to the historical variability of the data.

The argument here is not about global warming, it's about the antropogenic forcing and frankly, the data supporting that forcing is not good science!

Quote:Warming is not causing ice increaes in other areas. It is getting colder in other areas, thus more freezing. Warming does not cause ice - freezing does. That's why we make ice cubes in freezers and not in ovens.

Ehhhhh........

Freezing rain and ice CAN occur from warming temperatures. Freezing rain occurs from rain falling through warm air aloft, then freezing when it hits colder temps on the ground. If it was cold or freezing all the way down, it would be snow. So the fact that it is turning to ice, instead of snow, indicates WARMING - not freezing.

Can't see how you are missing the big picture.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Quote:There is also abundent data to show that glaciers are growing in Wahsington,France, and Switzerland. It is also clear that the Antarctic ice cap elevation is increasing meaning that it is getting thicker. Also a study by Harvard concluded that "we just don't know if the ice mass balance is growing or shrinking" due to the historical variability of the data.

And that is the conundrum Matt. The issue isn't about global warming, it's about anthropogenic forcing. All indicators, all the data, inform us that we are but a very small contributor. So if we take the draconian measures prescribed by the alarmists we will do next to nothing to change the trend and do a great deal of harm to the people around us. Instead of piddling away good money after weak, and bad science, spend it on something with utility. Spend it on building reactors, fusion research, alternative fuels, etc.

There are two tacks to this discussion. The first is that there is no consensus, and being a scientist, I can tell you first hand that if you ever run into a bunch of scientist having a Stepford moment you better be seriously creeped out.

The second is that the data for anthropogenic forcing is marginal at best. Yet there are those who buy into it hook line and sinker. Then someone like myself comes along and wonders Hmmmm. All of a sudden my credentials mean nothing and I'm told that I'm not "qualified" to even comment on the subject. And most of the people who tell me this would fail my class in physical chemistry. The members of the church Branch AlGorevidians pontificate in absolutes yet science isn't about absolutes. Even in the hard sciences we don't actually know anything. We believe it to be true based on probabilites. To use an analogy that is appropriate to this forum, a young martial artist believes that he/she has found the perfect art. A mature one realizes that "perfect" is in the eye of the beholder.

Be fascinated by the science, but do it from the perspective of what science is. Science is defined by, and progresses, far more because of it's failures than its successes. There are a number of ancillary and auxiliary issues here. Iíve seen nobody in this thread oppose environmental responsibility but only the fact that the science behind anthropogenic forcing of climate change isnít even close to being settled.

I relate the global warming debate to someone who discovers that there are sunspots. There is science behind the fact that sunspots exist, but the actual ability to generate an effect on them is non-existant to minimal at best. Where they affect the electrical and electro-magnetic fields of the earth, they have an effect, but it's pretty predictable and well known in the areas of life where the effects are felt. Adjustments are made by those people affected, and the rest of humanity goes on without being alarmed or affected.

Enter the Al Gorvedians, and the mantra would be "sunspots are damaging the electromagnetic fields of the earth" (well known and accepted fact). If we don't do something NOW, all life as we know it is doomed, and the earth is going to have an electromagnetic shift that will destroy the universe. At that point, they will offer you "electromagnetic credits" so you can minimalize your effect on the earth's electromagnetic field, and all the good citizens can go home feeling good about themselves. All you evil people who continue to ignore the electromagnetic crisis and continue living your lives as you have in the past are the scourge of the earth, and should be chastised for your evil behavior.

There is concensus that sunspots affect the electromagnetic fields of the earth, but no single concensus on what those effects actually are... but those that oppose the Al Gorevidian patchwork science view of it's effects can be dismissed as "unknowledgeable", "pursuing the wrong hypothesis", or simply too stupid to see the forest for the trees.

Sound familiar...?

_________________________
What man is a man that does not make the world a better place?... from "Kingdom of Heaven"